Stephan Lüders

Morbidity and Mortality After Stroke, Eprosartan Compared With Nitrendipine for Secondary Prevention Principal Results of a Prospective Randomized Controlled Study (MOSES)

Background and Purpose— In hypertensive stroke patients, for the same level of blood pressure control, eprosartan will be more effective than nitrendipine in reducing cerebrovascular and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Methods— A total of 1405 well-defined, high-risk hypertensives with cerebral event during the last 24 months (proven by cerebral computed tomography scan or nuclear magnetic resonance) were randomized to eprosartan or nitrendipine (mean follow-up 2.5 years). Primary end point was the composite of total mortality and all cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events, including all recurrent events. Results— Randomization was successful without significant differences in the baseline characteristics. Blood pressure was reduced to a comparable extent without any significant differences between the 2 groups during the whole study period (150.7/84 mm Hg and 152.0/87.2 mm Hg with eprosartan and nitrendipine therapy to 137.5/80.8 mm Hg and 136.0/80.2 mm Hg, respectively, confirmed by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring). Moreover, already after 3 months, normotensive mean values were achieved, and 75.5% reached values <140/90 mm Hg with the eprosartan regimen and 77.7% with the nitrendipine regimen. During follow-up, in total, 461 primary events occurred: 206 eprosartan and 255 nitrendipine (incidence density ratio [IDR], 0.79; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.96; P=0.014). Cardiovascular events were: 77 eprosartan and 101 nitrendipine (IDR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.02; P=0.06); cerebrovascular events: 102 eprosartan and134 nitrendipine (IDR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.58 to 0.97; P=0.03). Conclusions— The Morbidity and Mortality After Stroke, Eprosartan Compared With Nitrendipine for Secondary Prevention (MOSES) study was the first to compare an angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist with a calcium antagonist in secondary stroke prevention. In these high-risk hypertensive stroke patients, an early normotensive and comparable blood pressure was achieved. The combined primary end point was significantly lower in the eprosartan group.

The ACCESS Study Evaluation of Acute Candesartan Cilexetil Therapy in Stroke Survivors

Background and Purpose— The Acute Candesartan Cilexetil Therapy in Stroke Survivors (ACCESS) study was designed to assess the safety of modest blood pressure reduction by candesartan cilexetil in the early treatment of stroke. The study was also designed to provide an estimate of the number of cases required to perform a larger phase III efficacy study. Methods— Five hundred patients were recruited in a prospective, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, multicenter phase II study. Results— This safety trial was stopped prematurely when 342 patients (339 valid) had been randomized because of an imbalance in end points. Demographic data, cardiovascular risk factors, and blood pressure on admission, on study onset, and within the whole study period were not significantly different between the 2 groups. However, the cumulative 12-month mortality and the number of vascular events differed significantly in favor of the candesartan cilexetil group (odds ratio, 0.475; 95% CI, 0.252 to 0.895). There were no significant differences in concomitant medication and in number or type of side effects. Conclusions— Although the mechanisms by which angiotensin type 1 (AT1) receptor blockade affects cardiovascular morbidity and mortality are still unresolved, the present study shows that early neurohumoral inhibition has similar beneficial effects in cerebral and in myocardial ischemia. The fact that no cardiovascular or cerebrovascular event occurred as a result of hypotension is of significant clinical importance. When there is need for or no contraindication against early antihypertensive therapy, candesartan cilexetil is a safe therapeutic option according to the ACCESS results.

The Pharao study: prevention of hypertension with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril in patients with high-normal blood pressure – a prospective, randomized, controlled prevention trial of the German Hypertension League

Background The prevention of hypertension with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor ramipril in patients with high-normal blood pressure study addresses the issue of whether progression to manifest hypertension in patients with high-normal blood pressure can be prevented with treatment. Methods A total of 1008 participants with high-normal office blood pressure were randomized to ramipril treatment group (n = 505) and a control group (n = 503). The patients were followed up for 3 years. Primary endpoint was to prevent or delay the progression to manifest hypertension. Secondary endpoints were reduction in the incidence of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events, as well as the development of hypertension as defined by ambulatory blood pressure monitoring. Findings One hundred and fifty-five patients (30.7%) in the ramipril group, and 216 (42.9%) in the control group reached the primary endpoint (relative risk reduction 34.4%, P = 0.0001). Ramipril also proved to be more effective in reducing the incidence of manifest office hypertension in patients with baseline ambulatory blood pressure monitoring high-normal blood pressure. The incidence of cerebrovascular and cardiovascular events showed no statistically significant differences between the two groups. Cough was more frequent in the ramipril group (4.8 vs. 0.4%). Interpretation There is now good clinical evidence that patients with high-normal blood pressure (prehypertension) are more likely to progress to manifest hypertension than patients with optimal or normal blood pressure. Additional ambulatory blood pressure monitoring seems to be essential to achieve correct diagnosis. Treatment of patients with high-normal office blood pressure with the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor was well tolerated, and significantly reduced the risk of progression to manifest hypertension.

Microalbuminuria and tubular proteinuria as risk predictors of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality in essential hypertension: final results of a prospective long-term study (MARPLE Study)*.

Objective To evaluate the impact of microalbuminuria (MAU) or tubular proteinuria (TPU) on cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and all-cause mortality, and to assess whether a normalization of MAU and/or TPU induced by angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitor-based antihypertensive treatment with ramipril improves cerebrovascular prognosis in essential hypertensive patients without diabetes mellitus. Method A prospective, controlled, multicenter study was performed involving 3529 hypertensive participants (average follow-up 42.5 months). Ramipril was the basic antihypertensive medication. Proteinuria analysis (albumin, alpha 1-microglobulin, SDS electrophoresis) was performed by quantitative measurement every year. Ambulatory blood pressure monitoring was performed once yearly. The main outcome determined was cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and all-cause mortality. Results In patients with TPU and/or MAU, the risk for endpoints increased significantly compared with normal (TPU, 30.0%; MAU, 54.7%; MAU + TPU, 64.0%; macroproteinuria, 74.4%). A change of protein excretion either from pathologic to normal or from normal to pathologic showed a clear trend to correlate with cerebrovascular endpoints (P = 0.056 and P = 0.055). Normal protein excretion at baseline and during follow-up indicated a significantly better prognosis than pathologic proteinuria at baseline and during follow-up. (P < 0.0001). TPU normalized in 31.9%, MAU in 30.6%, MAU + TPU in 29.3%, and macroproteinuria in 10.2% of patients. A total of 445 (25.4%) patients with normal protein excretion developed pathologic proteinuria during follow-up. Conclusions In non-diabetic hypertensive patients, MAU as well as TPU increases the incidence of cardiovascular events. Normalization of MAU, TPU or macroproteinuria during angiotensin-converting enzyme-inhibitor-based treatment correlates with a reduction of cardiovascular events. Beyond blood pressure control, normalization of MAU and TPU should be considered as a further therapeutic goal. There is a need for further studies to optimize treatment if proteinuria is unresponsive to angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors.

Effects of Baroreflex Activation Therapy on Ambulatory Blood Pressure in Patients With Resistant Hypertension

Baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) has been demonstrated to decrease office blood pressure (BP) in the randomized, double-blind Rheos trial. There are limited data on 24-hour BP changes measured by ambulatory BP measurements (ABPMs) using the first generation rheos BAT system suggesting a significant reduction but there are no information about the effect of the currently used, unilateral BAT neo device on ABPM. Patients treated with the BAT neo device for uncontrolled resistant hypertension were prospectively included into this study. ABPM was performed before BAT implantation and 6 months after initiation of BAT. A total of 51 patients were included into this study, 7 dropped out from analysis because of missing or insufficient follow-up. After 6 months, 24-hour ambulatory systolic (from 148±17 mm Hg to 140±23 mm Hg, P<0.01), diastolic (from 82±13 mm Hg to 77±15 mm Hg, P<0.01), day- and night-time systolic and diastolic BP (all P⩽0.01) significantly decreased while the number of prescribed antihypertensive classes could be reduced from 6.5±1.5 to 6.0±1.8 (P=0.03). Heart rate and pulse pressure remained unchanged. BAT was equally effective in reducing ambulatory BP in all subgroups of patients. This is the first study demonstrating a significant BP reduction in ABPM in patients undergoing chronically stimulation of the carotid sinus using the BAT neo device. About that BAT-reduced office BP and improved relevant aspects of ABPM, BAT might be considered as a new therapeutic option to reduce cardiovascular risk in patients with resistant hypertension. Randomized controlled trials are needed to evaluate BAT effects on ABPM in patients with resistant hypertension accurately.

Effects of baroreflex activation therapy on arterial stiffness and central hemodynamics in patients with resistant hypertension.

Background: High central blood pressure, augmentation index and pulse wave velocity are independent cardiovascular risk factors. Little is known of the effect of baroreflex activation therapy on central hemodynamics. Method: In this prospective clinical trial, radial artery applanation tonometry and pulse wave analysis were used to derive central aortic pressure and hemodynamic indices (i.e. augmentation pressure, augmentation index, pulse wave velocity, systolic and diastolic pressure time integral, subendocardial viability index) at baseline and 6 months after starting baroreflex activation therapy in 25 patients with resistant hypertension. Results: Apart from peripheral blood pressure reduction, 6 months of baroreflex activation therapy significantly reduced mean central aortic blood pressure from 109.7 ± 20.5 to 97.4 ± 18.8 mmHg (P < 0.01) and aortic pulse pressure from 62.9 ± 18.6 to 55.2 ± 16.0 mmHg (P < 0.01). Aortic augmentation pressure and augmentation index at a heart rate of 75 b.p.m. were significantly reduced by 4.3 ± 7.9 mmHg (P = 0.01) and 3.5 ± 6.8% (P = 0.02). Additionally, pulse wave velocity decreased from 10.3 ± 2.6 to 8.6 ± 1.3 m/s (P < 0.01) 6 months after starting baroreflex activation therapy. Systolic pressure time integral was significantly reduced (P = 0.03), whereas subendocardial viability index remained unchanged. Conclusion: Apart from peripheral blood pressure, baroreflex activation therapy reduces central blood pressure, augmentation index at a heart rate of 75 b.p.m. and pulse wave velocity in patients with resistant hypertension, suggesting strong potential to reduce cardiovascular risk.

Baroreflex activation therapy in patients with prior renal denervation.

Background: Both baroreflex activation therapy (BAT) and renal denervation modulate sympathetic activity. The aim of this study was to systematically investigate whether additive modulation of autonomic nervous system by BAT lowers blood pressure (BP) in patients who still suffer from uncontrolled resistant hypertension despite prior renal denervation. Methods: From 2012 to January 2015, patients treated with BAT for uncontrolled resistant hypertension, who prior received renal denervation were consecutively analyzed in four German centers for hypertension. Analyses of office BP, 24-h ambulatory BP, central hemodynamics, parameters of renal function were performed. Results: A total of 28 patients, who underwent renal denervation at least 5 months before and still suffer from uncontrolled BP, were subsequently treated with BAT. The office SBP decreased from 182 ± 28 to 163 ± 27 mmHg (P < 0.01) with a responder rate of 68% (office SBP reduction ≥10 mmHg) at month 6, whereas the number of prescribed antihypertensive drug classes remained unchanged (6.2 ± 1.5 vs. 6.0 ± 1.7, P = 0.30). Serum creatinine, estimated glomerular filtration rate and cystatin C remained stable (P = 1.00, P = 0.41 and P = 0.22, respectively), whereas albuminuria was significantly reduced by a median of −29% (P = 0.02). Central SBP (−15 ± 24 mmHg, P = 0.047) and end systolic pressure (−14 ± 20 mmHg, P = 0.03) were significantly reduced. Conclusion: The present data demonstrate that BAT may exert BP-lowering as well as antiproteinuric effects in patients with prior renal denervation. However, precise evaluation of BAT effects in patients with prior renal denervation will need randomized controlled trials using sham procedures.

Vaskuläre Demenz und Hypertonie

Dementia and associated diseases will have increasing impact on economical and social system in most countries. As long as no causal therapy for dementia exists, primary prevention, diagnosis and control of risk factors for dementia are crucial. Uncontrolled hypertension is one of the most important risk factors for vascular dementia. An early antihypertensive treatment may reduce cognitive impairment or at least prolong the time to onset of dementia.

BP goal achievement in patients with uncontrolled hypertension : results of the treat-to-target post-marketing survey with irbesartan.

Background and objective:Despite the fact that high BP is a leading risk factor for cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, BP goals are achieved in less than 10–30% of hypertensive patients. Irbesartan alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide has been shown to control BP in >70% of hypertensive patients in clinical trials. We set out to investigate the role in clinical practice of irbesartan in improving BP in uncontrolled hypertensive patients with a particular focus on patients with the metabolic syndrome through analysis of data from a post-marketing surveillance study.Methods:A multicentre, prospective, post-marketing surveillance study was conducted over 9 months in 14 200 patients aged ≥18 years with previously uncontrolled hypertension (either receiving therapy or newly diagnosed), paying particular attention to a subgroup of patients receiving irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide as first-line combination therapy. BP was measured by a sphygmomanometer. The main outcome measures were systolic BP (SBP) and diastolic BP (DBP) reduction, response rate (DBP reduction of ≥10mm Hg or to <90mm Hg), and BP normalisation (SBP <140 and DBP <90mm Hg) in patients treated with irbesartan alone or in combination with hydrochlorothiazide. Analyses per patient subgroup, previous medication and whether treatment was initiated by the treating physician as first-line combination therapy were conducted. The number and nature of adverse events were documented.Results:Use of irbesartan 300 mg/day as monotherapy in previously uncontrolled patients resulted in a significant reduction in SBP/DBP (−26.8/−13.3mm Hg, p < 0.0001), which was comparable to the subgroup of patients with the metabolic syndrome (−26.3/−13.0mm Hg, p < 0.0001 vs baseline). Combination therapy (irbesartan 300mg/hydrochlorothiazide 12.5mg once daily) lowered BP by −27.9/ −14.2mm Hg (p < 0.0001) in previously uncontrolled patients; again the subgroup of patients with the metabolic syndrome achieved a comparable BP reduction (−27.5/−14.1mm Hg, p < 0.0001 vs baseline). Overall, no linear dose-response relationship was observed. Use of irbesartan/hydrochlorothiazide as first-line combination therapy was effective (BP normalisation rates between 65.7% and 78.6%) and safe. The mean number of antihypertensive tablets taken was reduced and after a mean period of 9 months, 92% of patients were still taking irbesartan therapy.Conclusions:The study demonstrates that treatment with an irbesartan-based regimen for 9 months results in a strong BP reduction and is feasible as first-line combination therapy. Similar BP reductions were observed in the subgroup of patients with the metabolic syndrome. Compliance with treatment is particularly good, with >90% of patients continuing with treatment after 9 months.

The German Hypertension League (Deutsche Hochdruckliga) Quality Seal Protocol for blood pressure-measuring devices: 15-year experience and results from 105 devices for home blood pressure control

ObjectiveThe German Hypertension League (Deutsche Hochdruckliga) established a program to assess the accuracy and reliability of blood pressure (BP)-measuring devices in 1999 (Quality Seal Protocol). Here, we report on the results of a testing series of 105 devices designed for BP self-measurement. MethodsThe test protocol for the validation of upper-arm, wrist, and finger devices was developed to compare device to conventional Riva-Rocci measurements based on five criteria: mean systolic and mean diastolic differences, their standard deviations, and a point score representing the correlation of systolic and diastolic errors of individual comparisons. The results of this testing are summarized. ResultsFrom 1999 to 2014, a total of 105 BP devices for self-measurement were tested according to the Quality Seal Protocol. Of these, 47.6% fulfilled all five validation criteria, 55.7% of the upper-arm devices (39 of 71) and 32.4% (11 of 34) of the wrist devices. Finger devices were not offered for testing. Forty-four devices (41.9%) failed multiple test criteria of the validation procedure. A subanalysis with 51 devices tested showed that a stricter definition of the passing point score with a limit of at least 55% would slightly increase the consistency with the conventional criteria in comparison with a point score criterion of at least 50%. It was therefore introduced in 2007. ConclusionThe results indicate the importance of a rigorous testing of a BP-measuring device used for home BP measurement to prevent patients from making erroneous treatment decisions.